Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

The difference between profit-making under legitimate capitalism, and "profiteering" is whether or not human quality of life is a value.

Mark says, "...In my opinion if every decision a manager makes is directed to maximize profit everyone wins...."

Those decisions may or may not include the overall quality of life of the workers or laborers under that manager.

A profiteer holds that human beings are "resources." They`re exchangeable, nobody`s unique, and everyone is replaceable.

A capitalist holds that human beings want to work toward their own best interests. By structuring incentives and factoring equity sharing, each individual in a business becomes partly a manager. Sort of a manager of profits.

Given your above propositions, we`re probably 180-degrees opposite in our thinking. I`m making an observation, not getting mad at you.  :-)

Modern anthropology and economists hold that greed is the foundation and underlying basis of human nature. I totally disagree, and propose that greed isn`t in any way the same thing as Ayn Rand`s proposition of rational self-interest.

But assuming that greed is the basis for all human nature, we see that government regulations must be required. Otherwise, humanity would revert to a tribal system of "might makes right."

I hold that quality of life is the foundation of human motivation. I also hold that a human being doesn`t automatically become a human citizen. They must be taught how to become an adult. The starting point of the human brain has no capacity for empathy, emotion, reason, morality, conscience, and so forth.

If we define "quality" as the measure of how closely something approaches the ideal, then we have to examine the ideal life. We then can include or exclude successful socialization, and consider whether the "natural" condition ought to be this or that.

Greed causes profiteering. Capitalism is a moral system based on private ownership. Greed includes envy, and acts toward taking away someone else`s values and property. Capitalism supports private ownership for the purpose of building an integrated society.

Your argument further proposes that by offering greed as an incentive, it somehow builds a better world. And that requires a philosophy that outlines an ideal world.

An ethic of greed is based on assigning values to human beings as being better or worse for the purpose of something. It also assumes that all people are only interested in their isolated life, without accounting for why societies arise.

Are societies selected by nature as being an advantage over the individual? I would argue that yes, they are. Two people working together in almost all cases have a better chance of survival than one person working alone.

Therefore, a society must "somehow" interact to a mutual benefit. Since greed is mutually exclusive, it ultimately would collapse any society formed on the ethics of greed.

I`m not arguing that treating employees like people is an issue. It`s your underlying premise that I`m disagreeing with:

It doesn`t matter whether you use greed and profit maximization in the long or the short term. Either way, you`re founding your enterprise on a bad corporate philosophy---the philosophy of profiteering.

People certainly will work well if you cater to their greed. So too, they`ll work well if you have an incentive-punishment system. They`ll work well when they`re terrified. They`ll work well under extortion conditions too.

In other words, all sorts of ways can be put into place to make people work well. Greed is less physically damaging than whips and chains, but it still is a bad way to do things.

But even more important is the concept of greed itself, and whether it`s the default condition of a healthy human being. I`m saying that greed is a natural condition for a child, prior to their learning about rational self interest.

Quality of life is a better foundation, with a comprehension of both the concept of quality, and life.

Mark,
The problem you`re going to have if you set down the theory, is the contradicting examples. One that comes to mind is the Roman empire, which lasted 700 years and was built essentially on slavery.

Although they were very productive, the slaves weren`t at all treated as you`ve said above. So too, in many of today`s corporations the threat of being fired brings about significant productivity.

It`s true that providing incentives and treating workers fairly *also* improves productivity, but how do you account for the opposite?

How can you say that an empire that lasted twice as long as the United States (so far) only "appears" to be productive?

I understand that given a moral premise, treating people with respect is a better option than keeping them in fear. But what I`m also saying is that before you have a consolidated theory, you also must have that moral premise.

The actual facts of history demonstrate that either fear or respect will produce just as much.

Another example is China, whose economy went from 0 to 60 in a minute and a half. It was (and is) built on slave labor. Yet today, almost anything we buy is made in China. Almost all our debt is held by China. They lend us more money than anyone else at the moment.